Article published in:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 22:2 (1999) ► pp. 85–102

The Indonesian and english argument structure

A cross-cultural rhetoric of argumentative texts

| The Australian National University
This study examined and compared the rhetorical structure of argumentative texts written by three groups of university students: 1° twenty Indonesian texts written by Indonesian native speakers (I.I); 2° ten English texts written by Indonesian native speakers (I.E); and 3° ten English texts written by English native speakers (A.E). Following the argumentative text analysis model developed by Tirkkonen-Condit (1984 and 1986) and Connor (1990), the data were analysed using top-down and bottom-up analysis techniques at macro organisational text level. The results indicated that the text organisational structures of argumentative texts in English and in Indonesian were different in respect of the frequency of occurrence of sections—introduction, evaluation and conclusion— and of the sub-sections of refutation, sub-claim, and induction within the problem section. Cultural differences between English and Indone-sian may have played a crucial role in the text rhetorical differences. Also, the I.E. text features are more similar to those of the A.E. texts than to those of the I.I. texts. The study indicates that the Indonesian students need to study the conventions of rhetorical structures and text features of English argumentative texts in order to be able to write good argumentative texts in English.
Published online: 01 January 1999
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.22.2.06ars
References
———
(1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar
———
(1990) Linguistics/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing. Research in the Teaching of English 24/1: 67–87.Google Scholar
———
(1997) Writing Expository Essays in Chinese: Chinese or Western Influences? In Z. Golebiowski and H. Borlland (eds) Academic Communication Across Disciplines and Cultures. Melbourne, Victoria University of Technology.Google Scholar
Ballard, B. and J. Clanchy
(1984) Study Abroad: A Manual for Asian Students. Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysian Longman.Google Scholar
Birk, N. and G. Birk
(1967) Persuasion by Logical Argument. In L.E. Glorfeld, T.E. Kakones and J.C. Wilcox (eds) Language Rhetoric and Idea: A Unified Approach to Composition. Columbus, Ohio, C.E. Merrill Books.Google Scholar
Chessel, P. and H. Birnstihl
(1978) Essay Writing: A Guide (2nd ed.). Malvern, Victoria, Sorrett Publishing.Google Scholar
Choi, Y.H.
(1988) Text Structure of Korean Speakers’ Argumentative Essays in English. World Englishes 7/2: 129–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U.
(1987) Argumentative Patterns in Student Essays: Cross-cultural differences. In U. Connor and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Company.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and J. Lauer
(1985) Understanding Persuasion Essay Writing: Linguistic/Rhetorical Approach. Text 5/4: 309–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eggington, W.G.
(1987) Written Academic Discourse in Korean: Implications for Effective Communication. In U. Connor, and R.B. Kaplan (eds) Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Hatch, E.
(1992) Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge, CUP.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. and A. Lazaraton
(1991) The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.Google Scholar
Hinds, J.
(1983) Contrastive Rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3/2: 183–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, R.B.
(1972) The Anatomy of Rhetoric: Prolegomena to a Functional Theory of Rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA, Centre for Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Keraf, G.
(1992) Argumen dan Narasi. Jakarta, Gramedia.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A.
(1994) Contrastive Rhetorics and the Teaching of Academic Discourse. Paper presented at RELC Singapore Conference, April 18-20 1994.
Levin, G.
(1966) A Brief Handbook of Rhetoric. New York Harcourt, Brace and Word.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. J.
(1997) Communicating Within Cultures, Communicating Across Cultures, Communicating Between Cultures. In Z. Golebiowski and H. Borlland (eds) Academic Communication Across Disciplines and Cultures. Melbourne, Victoria University of Technology.Google Scholar
Mohan, B.A. and W.A.Y. Lo
(1985) Academic Writing and Chinese Students’ Transfer and Development Factors. TESOL Quarterly 19/3: 515–534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rottenberg, A.T.
(1988) Elements of Argument. New York, St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
Rubin, D., R. Goodrum and B. Hall
(1990) Orality, Oral-based, and the Academic Writing of ESL Learners. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11: 56–76.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
(1984) Towards a Descriptive of Argumentative Text Structure. In R. Hikam and M. Rissanen (eds) Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference for English Studies. Publications of the Research Institute of the Abo Akademi Foundation.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S.E., R. Rieke and A. Janik
(1979) An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, Macmillan (2nd ed. 1984).Google Scholar
Wyrick, J.
(1987) Steps to Writing Well. Orlando, Florida, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Bahmani, Mona, Azizeh Chalak, Hossein Heidari Tabrizi & Oleg Tarnopolsky
2021. The effect of evaluative language on high- and low-graded post-graduate students’ academic writing ability across gender. Cogent Education 8:1 Crossref logo
Rusfandi
2015. Argument-Counterargument Structure in Indonesian EFL Learners’ English Argumentative Essays: A Dialogic Concept of Writing. RELC Journal 46:2 ► pp. 181 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.